Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/01/12 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall January 12, 1983 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1982 - 1983 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 11 1 Hugh Curtis X 12 0 Darel Harris X 10 2 Hugh Kaptur X 11 1 Peter Koetting X 11 1 Don Lawrence X 10 2 Paul Madsen X 10 2 Staff Present John A. Mangione, Director of Community Development Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney Richard McCoy, City Engineer Dudley Hemphill , Traffic Engineer Tom Lynch, Economic Development & Housing Director Diana Ericksen, Community Development Coordinator Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Officer II Doug Evans, Planner III . Robert Green, Planner II Stephen Graham, Planner III Mary Isenberg, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - January 10, 1983 Larry Lapham, Chairman James Cioffi Chris Mills Hugh Curtis David Hamilton William Johnson, Alternate Earl Neel Absent: Peter Koetting Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of the November 24 and December 22, 1982 meetings were approved as submitted. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried -10 amending the Minutes of December 8, 1982 as follows: Time Extension, TTM 18126, page 10 - Expiration date should be January 2O, not January 29. r � January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE Chairman explained the public hearing process. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS CASE 5.0231-PD-139. Application by C. MILLS for S. Broxmeyer for a planned development district to allow construction of three affordable housing projects on N. Palm Canyon Drive between Gateway Drive/extension of Tramview Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 34. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and action for filing. Comments received from CalTrans, Department of Fish and Game, State Water Resources Board and the Office of Historic Preservation.) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve the preliminary development concept of Case 5.0231-PD-139 subject to conditions. Planning Director stated that the environmental review process was complete with comments received from CalTrans, the Department of Fish and Game, the State Water Resources Board and the Office of Historic Preservation; and that staff has prepared responses to the comments which will result in additional conditions for the project. He • explained the density transfer proposed by the applicant; stated that staff recommends the transfer due to City housing goals since affordable apartments are proposed for the project; that there will be a traffic impact on Highway 111; and that no mitigation will be required for the fringe-toed lizard since the site is only a marginal habitat area. Planner III presented the addendum environmental evaluation (on file in the Department of Community Development) and stated that any additional requirements resulting from environmental studies in the areas of archaeology, public services (schools) , circulation, utilities, and noise will be made conditions of final approval of the project. Traffic Engineer stated that rough calculations were made of traffic movements at the intersection of Gateway Drive and Highway Ill and from the results of the calculations (prepared using a CalTrans format) , staff is recommending a traffic signal and minor redesign of the intersection in conjunction with Phase III of the project unless there is an accident problem which would require quicker implementation. He stated that there was no visibility problem at the intersection; and in reply to question by Commission, that an overpass would be too costly and there would be a trade-off in traffic time vs impact on streets connecting to Indian Avenue if Indian Avenue were the only access; and that there would be little impact from traffic resulting from buildout of the vacant area of the project. • January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 . CASE 5.0231-PD-139 (Cont' d.) In reply to questions by Commission, Economic Development & Housing Director stated that although opportunities for moderate income home ownership have been met in the City, there is a need for moderate income apartments; that the project will provide 186 apartment units which would be of benefit to the City; that the Desert Dorado development converted from apartments to condominiums in the third phase of development; that there could be a demand for apartments by the time the project is built; and that the apartments will be developed in the middle phase. Planning Director stated that apartments could be constructed first if the Commission desires. Chairman declared the hearing open. C. Mills, 278-C North Palm Canyon Drive, the applicant, stated that a series of windbreaks will be constructed which will integrate with the Redevelopment Agency proposal for the area and which will be an important aspect of the project's success and the success of subsequent development in the area. In reply to questions by Commission, Mr. Mills stated that although the Federal subsidy program for affordable housing is no longer available, there are other programs that are becoming available; that the rental • rates have not been determined since the number of apartment units has not been clarified; that the applicant wants preliminary approval of the density so the project can be finalized. In reply to questions by Commission, Planning Director stated that community needs trigger consideration of increased density; that the final development plans for the project will be reviewed in this context; and that the City has several safeguards relative to density bonuses for developers. In reply to questions by Commission, Mr. Mills stated that the windbreaks will be constructed in a series with the initial one built along the southern boundary of the Whitewater Bypass if the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property is acquired. He then described the boundaries of the remaining phases of the windbreak and stated that if the City feels that there is a need for a nursery it will be shown on the final development plans; that the screened area for recreational vehicles is not shown in the plans at this time; explained alternate project plans if the BLM land cannot be acquired; noted that the City is supporting the acquisition of the BLM property; and stated that the apartments could be constructed first if the City desires. Planner III noted that the BLM property, if not acquired by the applicant, would not necessarily remain open space since the BLM will sell to the highest bidder. • In reply to questions by Commission, Mr. Mills stated that the apartment project is furthest north and would not be impacted by grading and construction on future phases; that undergrounding of utilities has not been resolved in detail but will probably be constructed with the extension of Tramview Road. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 • CASE 5.0231-PD-139 (Cont' d. ) In reply to questions by Commission, Planning Director stated that the City can make provisions for the applicant to fund or participate in funding for upgrading of the sewer in that area. In reply to question by Commission, Mr. Mills stated that more studies will be made before sizes of "affordable" apartments are determined and noted that there may be a need for a three bedroom, one bath type of unit as well as units under 1,000 sq. ft. He stated that research is determining that society's needs are returning to the single bath home because of economics; that in final development plans, the project may change from a site plan viewpoint, but not from a product viewpoint and the project is all two-story. In reply to questions by Commission, Planning Director stated that there are problems with sewer capacity in the area because of increased density; that there are problems City-wide as well ; that the City Engineer is studying the sewer capacity at the present time with a report to be prepared by the end of January; and that the area is being reviewed for sewer capacity relative to other projects in the area. Planner III stated that the City Engineer was enroute to the meeting. In reply to question by Commission, Planning Director stated that the • sewer impact would be downstream from the Broxmeyer project. Discussion ensued on the process used to determine sewer capacity. Planner III stated that the Master Plan of Sewers was based on 1974 zoning and that increased density causes an impact on the system. City Engineer stated that he had made a preliminary investigation with startling results showing a deficiency; that a report would be finalized and recommendations made to the City Manager by January 31; that a decision will have to be made on whether or not an outside consultant should be engaged or the study done inhouse; that there was one sewer line on Palm Canyon Drive and one on Indian Avenue which merge and connect to the Treatment Plant; that based on the Broxmeyer project, their engineer noted a deficiency which is being studied by the City and that the engineer has been informed of this; that staff is studying whether or not density bonuses for the project impact the sewer system more than normal zoning development would; that staff was reviewing the Master Plan of Sewers to determine whether capacity was calculated by zoning or by the General Plan; that he probably would have a problem with the sewer capacity whether or not density bonuses were allowed; that this was in the process of being determined at the present time; that the problem for the Broxmeyer project was not in sewer capacity, but the inadequacy of the existing line to the Treatment Plant; that two questions will be addressed in the report, i .e. , Treatment Plant capacity and adequacy of the lines to the plant; that by January 31 , the report will be finished and Engineering staff is requesting delay on • approval of projects in sensitive areas but that the north end is not the only sensitive area; and that a condition could be placed on the project that the applicant meet engineering requirements regarding sewering the project. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 • CASE 5.0231-PD-139 (Cont'd.) In reply to a question by Commission, Planning Director stated that the applicant is not requesting a waiver of school and drainage fees. In reply to question by Chairman, Mr. Mills stated that the applicant understands the sewer situation and feels that the problems can be resolved; and financing was no problem if additional conditions increase costs. In reply to questions by Commission, Planning Director stated that prior to the submission of final development plans , the BLM land issue would need resolving; that if the land cannot be acquired, the plan would be redesigned to put the density over the entire 82 acres; that the project will change very little if the land is acquired; that in noticing the project, the vacant land was considered part of the PD but that new hearings would have to be held if the BLM land is acquired; that the density bonus condition use can be used by someone else since there is no requirement to consider density; and that Mr. Broxmeyer was proposing to purchase. Planner III stated that the BLM will not give the City any details of the land because of involvement in a litigation but that any member of the public can purchase it; that the City would have to compete on the open market for the purchase or lease of the land; and that there is no problem with the capacity of the sewer plant for the next ten years unless there is a development surge. Mr. Mills stated that there was a project approved in Section 14 which has the same type of sewer impact problems with conditions that would be acceptable to his client and requested action on the project. Rev. Rollins, 303 Avenida Cerca, First Baptist Church pastor, stated that he has been interested in obtaining affordable housing since the early 1970' s and requested that the Commission take speedy action to allow affordable housing for lower income people and to keep them in the community; that availability of housing in the area did not mean that it was affordable; and that the operative word for housing is "affordable" . Planning Director stated that there are affordable homes on Sunrise Way between Racquet Club and San Rafael . In reply to a question by Commission, Rev. Rollins stated that the balance for preference would be 50 - 50 between affordable apartments and affordable condominiums for that area. C. Dauphine, Desert Highlands/Gateway resident and former City Commissioner, stated that $800 per month payments cannot be made unless a 20% down payment is paid on a $65,000 to $75,000 home; that affordable houses cannot be built for straight income people and government should help by giving density bonuses and building controlled housing and comfortable apartments; that the Broxmeyer project seems reasonable but • the Temple project had not helped the working class of people; that there had been no development in the north area for years; that delaying the Broxmeyer project would raise its cost; that housing is needed for people in the services industry in the City; and requested approval of the project. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 • CASE 5.0231-PD-139 (Cont'd.) There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. City Engineer stated that in regard to the project in Section 14, the applicant agreed to develop only certain areas of the project until the sewer problems were resolved. Planning Director reiterated the concept proposal to the Commission at its request. Discussion followed on the acquisition of the BLM land, the school site, and the adequacy of the sewer system. Commissioner Harris requested that the item be continued to the February 9 meeting to allow review of the engineer' s report. Discussion followed on the affordability aspect of the project and frustrations of the developer if the case were continued for review of the sewer issue. Chairman stated that the Commission was not aware of the sewer issue although the applicants seemed to be; that giving tentative approval does not give a building permit; and that the project would probably not be built out for several years. Discussion continued on the preferred size of the units. Mr. Mills explained the phasing of the project and requested action on the density. He stated that the developer intends to have an answer on the acquisition of the BLM land by January, 1984. Motion was made by Harris and seconded by Kaptur to continue the application to the February 9, 1983 meeting. The vote was as follows: AYES: Harris, Kaptur NOES: Curtis, Koetting, Lawrence, Service, Madsen ABSENT: None The motion was defeated. City Engineer stated, in clarification, that the January 31 date is a date for making recommendations to the City Manager on the course of action to be taken to solve the sewer problem. Assistant City Attorney stated that a motion to continue a CUP to a definite date is debatable. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and carried (Harris dissented) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving the concept of the preliminary planned development district with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: • 1. That the planned residential development in-lieu of a change of zone at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a planned development district is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 • CASE 5.0231-PD-139 (Cont'd. ) 2. That the planned residential development, including low-income apartments and moderate income condominiums is necessary and desirable for the development of the community has been brought into conformance with the General Plan and Housing Element via the recommended conditions of approval , and is not detrimental to the existing uses or to uses specifically permitted by right of zone on General Plan in the vicinity in which the project is located. 3. That the site for the intended planned residential development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the intended use and all property development standards and General Plan requirements in order to adjust the intended use to those existing or permitted future uses on land in the neighborhood. 4. That the site for the proposed use relates to a major highway, collector, and local streets which are adequate in design and shall be improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5 . That the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study has been prepared which identifies potentially significant impacts and recommends mitigation which will reduce anticipated impacts to an acceptable level . • CONDITIONS: 1 . That 544 dwelling units are approved as the maximum density on the entire 83 + acre site and in the event that additional density rights are not acquired the site plan shall be redesigned to spread the 544 units over the entire site. 2. That 186 dwelling units shall meet identified City Housing Element goals and objectives delegated to the needs of lower income households earning less than 80% of the median household income for the standard metropolitan statistics area (SMSA) . 3. That the 36 + acre portion of the site shown vacant shall be reserved for the General Plan elementary and intermediate school sites (10 acres each) . In the event that the school sites are relocated and/or deleted and contiguous properties are acquired permitting additional density transfers, a revised planned development district application shall be required and public hearings held pursuant to Section 9407.00.L "Modification of Final Development Plans" for any additional density transfers. 4. That school impact fees are applicable to the project. 5. That prior to submission of final development plans, a tentative tract map shall be filed with the City. All recommendations of • the Coachella Valley Water District shall be incorporated into the final development plans. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 . CASE 5.0231-PD-139 (Cont'd.) 6. That until such time that a determination is made upon the availability of contiguous parcels, final development plans shall not be accepted for Planning Commission and City Council review. 7. That the developer shall agree to incur all costs associated with the preparation and processing of environmental documents pursuant to acquisition of contiguous parcels as well as any costs borne by the City in acquiring either or both of the parcels. 8. That for the purpose of acquisition of contiguous parcels, the developer shall prepare a specific land use plan incorporating future school site(s) , windbreaks, limited access thoroughfare, and all proposed land uses . 9. That the developer shall prepare a wind buffer feasibility study addressing design specifics , right-of-way requirements, construction costs, and on-going maintenance costs. 10. That the developer shall construct and maintain a minimum 200 ft. landscape wind buffer so the entire 82 + acre site is protected. This buffer shall be installed upon the issuance of grading permits for Phase I . 11. That the developer shall install and maintain a 100 ft. wide • windbreak on the easterly side of Tramview Road. 12. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met. The following items shall be deleted: Engineering Division, Traffic condition No. 5. 13. That final development plans be submitted. 14. That standard plan drawing No. 101, cul-de-sacs, be provided at the current terminus of Video Road, Lawrence Circle, Howard Circle, Alberto Circle, Jiminez Circle and Eastgate Circle or these streets (except Video Road) can be vacated if the adjacent property owners agree to accept vacation portions as a part of their property. The developer shall be required to remove all existing improvements and construct new curb and gutter along Las Vegas Road. 15. That one year shall be granted for the preparation of final development plans unless extended by ordinance. All exhibits as required under Section 9407.00.J. shall be submitted concurrently. 16. That all mitigative measures identified in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study such as wind erosion, land use and sewers shall be incorporated as conditions of approval . • 17. That security lighting at a level acceptable to the City be implemented. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 • CASE 5.0231-PD-139 (Cont' d.) 18. That parking be in close proximity to the residences. 19. That eight foot walls be provided adjacent to vacant property. 20. That playgrounds be provided for Phases I and II . 21 . That there be emergency vehicle access internally between the phases. 22. That a day nursery be provided on site. 23. That there be screened recreational vehicle areas for each phase. 24. That the developer is responsible for the design and installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Gateway Drive and Highway 111. 25 . That the developer shall participate in the upgrading of the Master Plan of Sewers pursuant to the City Engineer's de- termination on size and design and/or shall contribute an un- defined amount of money to a yet defined sewer assessment fund as determined by the City Engineer and future City Council resolution on a pro-rata basis with other properties benefitted • by such additional sewer improvements. CASE 5.0253-GPA. Initiation by THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for a General Plan amendment to approve the concept of a revised master plan of flood control and drainage, Citywide, for the City of Palm Springs. (The environmental assessment will be completed by Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD) . ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve a General Plan amendment to approve in concept a revised Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage city wide. Planning Director stated that a letter in opposition had been received from A. Perrier. Director of Community Development gave a brief background report. He stated that the revised plan will cover those parts of the City not previously covered by the Master Plan of Drainage (south of the South Palm Canyon Wash through the Channel to Cathedral City) ; that the cost would be $72 million but provides more areas with drainage and also provides four retention sites within parks for discharge to the Whitewater Channel in smaller pipe sizes which is cost effective; that the method of funding will require thought and probably prioritizing of part of the system; that drainage fees have been adopted by the City Council for new development with developed property paying an annual fee • for the system; and that the plan has been reviewed and approved by local engineering firms, the County, and the Tribal Council . He then explained the review process through the City and the County. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 • CASE 5.0253-GPA (Cont'd.) In reply to questions by Commission, Director of Community Development stated that the County had implemented the program in one area of the County but he did not know how successful it was although the plan was less complex than the City' s proposal ; that the City Council , not the Commission levies fees; that Commissioners can provide individual input to the Council relative to funding; that funding can be addressed by the Commission when the General Plan amendment for the proposal is considered; that the Planning Commission is concerned with planning issues, not assessment of fees; that the Planning Commission probably could not revise the plan since it is an engineering concept which has been addressed realistically by engineers; that there will be priorities in each subdrainage area; that the City does not have the ability to collect $72 million but can account for some of the cost; that if development is allowed to continue, flood control problems must be solved; and that the plan could be amended at a future date if new technology is developed. City Manager stated that there might be three perspectives regarding the plan as follows: 1. Engineering. More expertise if Commission desires but staff feels that the expertise is acceptable. 2. Premises of growth. Does the City wish to plan for a growing • community? The plan would cost less if the premise did not rest on growth. 3. Scope of the plan. Are the protective factors too high for the community? City Manager stated that in these three areas the Commission can review the plan, but the financing issues are addressed by the City Council . Discussion followed on the scope of the plan such as plans for a ten or fifty year and not a one-hundred year storm and the concept and implementation of the proposed plan. In reply to questions by Commission, Director of Community Development stated that distribution of the fees is not involved with the engineering concept and not relevant in consideration of the plan; that points of the Perrier letter would be addressed by City Council ; that priority in each area will be established later; and that some preliminaries have been addressed such as establishment of an 18-project priority list and establishment of six subdrainage areas with the monies to be spent in the individual area (which was a concept developed by the City Council when the fees were adopted) . Discussion followed on the concept of a ten year storm compared to a one hundred year storm. Director of Community Development stated that a ten • year storm represents 60% of a one hundred year storm and 60% of the water flow would be channeled underground and 40% channeled in the right-of-way in a 100 year type of storm. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 • CASE 5.0253-GPA (Cont' d. ) Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried approving a revised Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage, City wide. In reply to question by Commission, Director of Community Development stated that amendments to the plan can be done before it is totally implemented. Tribal Council comments: "This case was previously considered by the Tribal Council on December 21, 1982. As pointed out in the Tribal Council ' s Decembr 21, 1982 memorandum to the City Council , these proposed revisions to the Master Plan of Drainage are consistent with some of the concerns and recommendations raised by the Tribal Council in previous communications. The Tribal Council notes a continuing concern regarding the provision of an adequate and equitable revenue source to finance the construction of the planned drainage system. This concern, along with identifying the most cost effective drainage system to provide flood protection for the • City is a key issue in the planning process. Adoption of a Master Plan which is beyond the financial capacity of the community may lead to poor utilization of scarce resources. The Tribal Council understands that the following considerations relative to this matter will include an Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, a public hearing on an Amendment to the General Plan Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage, establishment of construction priorities, and an evaluation of total costs and potential revenue sources for funding the construction of the Master Plan facilities. The Tribal Council will comment on these items after receipt and review of the relevant studies, reports, etc. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council concurs in the concept of the proposed revisions to the Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage, but recommends that final action on the proposed amendments be withheld pending identification of adequate and equitable revenue sources for construction of the Master Plan facilities." • January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 5.0250-CUP. Application by GOLDUST LTD. for a CUP to allow a video game arcade in the Rim Rocks Plaza Shopping Center on E. Palm Canyon Drive, C-D-N Zone, Section 30. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment, per CEQA guidelines.) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 5.0250 subject to conditions. Planning Director described the location and stated that the application was the first under the new Video Arcade Ordinance; and that the hours of operation could be a condition of approval although the location is far removed from any school . Discussion followed on the hours of operation. Planning Director stated that the staff report was in error in defining the retail standard and should read, "one space per 200 sq. ft." , which would be 19 spaces, not 13 as indicated in the report; that there would be no food service and that the location is proper according to the Video Arcade Ordinance. Further discussion ensued on the hours of operation. Chairman stated that in the video arcade in the downtown area, there is a collection of persons outside who light fires to keep warm which leaves a bad impression of the downtown; and that he was concerned with X-rated video games being viewed by children. • City Attorney stated that there are definite problems restricting arcades from using that kind of game, but that the City Council is aware of the problem and addressing it with the involvement of the City Attorney' s office; that adult-only games have to be placed in adults- only areas; that prohibiting adult-only games would have constitutional problems; and that if put in the motion, this condition would be subject to challenge under First Amendment provisions. Further discussion ensued on prohibition of adult only games for ease of City enforcement even though it would invite litigation. Assistant City Attorney stated that if a condition were phrased to prohibit these types of games and the applicant installed them, action could be brought by the City or the machines could be removed forcing the applicant to bring action against the City; that segregation of the games is a valid condition; that the restriction could be that adult games are separate and apart in such a way that adults only would be admitted to that section; that two separate sites could not be part of the condition; that the wording could be that if people under 18 are allowed in the area, the CUP could be cancelled since the burden is on the operator to abide by the conditions by whatever means is necessary. Chairman declared the hearing open. • January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 CASE 5.0250-CUP (Cont'd.) A. Perleman, 4751 Palm Canyon Drive, representing the owner and applicant, stated that his clients are in full agreement with the 14 staff conditions; that food will not be served and there will be not cigarette machines or liquor; that there will be no X-rated video games; that the facility would not open during the normal mornings of school days except for weekends and holidays; that the Senior Citizen' s Board had contacted him relative to the arcade; that an age limit would mitigate children using the facility in the mornings; and that he was representing both Rim Rock Associates, owners of the shopping center and the applicant. In reply to questions by the Commission, Mr. Cafaino, the applicant, and Mr. Perleman stated that there would be no X-rated games. Discussion followed on imposition of an age limit and policing of the parking lot at the shopping center since it may become a hangout for youths. Mr. Perleman stated that it was doubtful that there would be this type of problem since there are no bars in the shopping center and because tenants become their own policing agents; and that the annual business license review would be a controlling factor. • Further discussion ensued on policing of the parking lot. Mr. Perleman stated that there is language in the lease which states that if the arcade becomes a nuisance, the use would be eliminated; that the remedy of the law prevails but there is no stipulation of a 30-day cancellation in the lease if the tenant does not comply with lease conditions. In reply to questions by Commission, Mr. Cafaino stated that table games provide access to wheelchair patrons; that tokens will be used instead of coins; and that there will be an attendant on the premises although it is not an ordinance requirement. In reply to question by Commission, Mr. Perleman stated that a security service could be provided through a group decision by the merchants as a common area expense. In reply to a question by Commission, Assistant City Attorney stated that review of the lease by the City Attorney' s office would not be useful ; and if there is a particular condition the Commission desires, it should be expressly stated. Further discussion followed on concerns of the lease, parking lot policing, and hours of operation. Assistant City Attorney stated that hours of operation is a reasonable condition and that although he was not aware of a curfew law, it would be applicable to the hours of operation. • Mr. Perleman stated that the nuisance problem was not addressed in the lease but could be and that the City basically controls the activity through the conditional use permit. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 • CASE 5.0250-CUP (Cont' d. ) Discussion followed on the isolated location of the video arcade at the shopping center. Mr. Perleman stated that it was designed in its location to be compatible with surrounding retail uses; and that Safeway has no objection to the arcade. Further discussion followed on possible problems that could be caused by the arcade. Mr. Perleman stated that there had been no problem in other arcades but that the applicant would agree to whatever controls the City felt necessary and that if problems of harrassment of patrons of the Lambides restaurant in the center occur, it would be a managment problem and would be addressed. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Koetting and seconded by Service for a two-week continuance for language to be developed regarding adult video games. Discussion followed on development of this language. Chairman stated that there cannot be tentative or partial approval of a CUP, but that it could be continued until conditions are acceptable. He questioned whether or not the process could be delayed for a half an hour for staff and City Attorney to develop wording relative to adult video games. Commissioner Koetting withdrew his motion with the consent of the • seconder. Planning Director stated that the applicant would probably agree to not having any adult video games; that a condition could be placed that any proposal for adult games would require a conditional use permit; and that the City Attorney indicates that an ordinance addressing this will be ready soon. Assistant City Attorney stated that the CUP should be approved or denied, but that a condition could be added that adult type video games are prohibited accept upon amendment of the CUP; that the term "adult type video games" is a sufficient description since movies of this type are defined as "adult movies" and acceptable to the courts. Motion was made by Koetting, second by Madsen, and carried (Service dissenting) approving CUP 5.0250 with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1 . That a video arcade is properly a use for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the shopping center is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed video arcade and has adequate parking. • January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 15 CASE 5.0250-CUP (Cont' d. ) 3. That the use is necessary and normal in the development of the community; is not materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; and is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 4. That the proposal will have an insignificant effect on the General Plan Street Plan. CONDITIONS: 1. That if "adult type video games" are proposed, a separate conditional use permit application be submitted for amendment of CUP 5.0250. 2. That the hours of operation be from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on school days, and from 8:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. on all other days. 3. That no noise or vibration that is detectable without the aid of any mechanical device or instrument be allowed beyond the outer perimeter of the building. 4. That the operator reports the location to the school Truancy Officer and assists the office in its responsibilities. • 5. That any sign shall be subject to a separate application. 6. That a rack to accommodate 12 bicycles be provided on the sidewalk in such a manner as to not impede pedestrians. Location and design to be approved by Planning Staff. 7. That a) video machines shall be arranged in such a way that the rear of the machine is not visible through the display window; or b) suitable screening to the satisfaction of the AAC shall be provided. (NOTE: The above a) and b) shall not apply to table machines.) 8. That there shall be an annual review of the site by the Department of Community Development prior to issuance of the business license. 9. That aisles shall be a minimum of 42 inches wide. 10. That fire sprinkler head coverage to conform to NFPA #13 shall be provided. 11. That two, 2AIOBC fire extinguishers be provided to the satisfaction of field inspectors. 12. That wall decorations be nonflammable. • 13. That a sign in one-inch high letters be provided adjoining the floor manager' s office stating, "Maximum Occupancy of This Room is 200 Persons" . January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 CASE 5.0250-CUP (Cont'd.) 14. That panic hardware be provided on all front and rear doors. 15. That clearly visible EXIT signs be provided over all exit doors. 16. That electrical demands be submitted to the Building Division for its approval . NOTE: Before the vote on the second motion, Commission discussed hours of operation which resulted in Condition No. 1 regarding this case. The Commission also discussed policing of the parking area and annual staff review of the CUP. Assistant City Attorney stated that it is questionable whether or not a business operator can be held responsibile for what happens in an area away from his business; that the CUP appears subject to renewal on an annual basis, and that a condition could be reworded that the CUP is enforced for a term of one year subject to renewal . Further discussion followed on whether or not a condition such as this would be tolerated by the shopping center. The Commission consensus was that the shopping center would not tolerate any nuisance that would make Safeway Stores leave its location. PUBLIC COMMENTS None Chairman left the meeting at this point; Vice Chairman presided. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITEMS Environmental evaluation reports were received by the Commission for their review and study prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Further review may be dispensed with and all items approved by motion. CASE 5.0255-MISC. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for environmental assessment for a flood plain management ordinance, Citywide, pursuant to requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . Recommendation: That the Planning Commission order the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and continue the map and the ordinance for public hearing on January 26. Planning Director stated that the proposed ordinance will regulate and prevent flood damage to the City based on flood insurance maps adopted by FEMA. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 17 • CASE5.0255-MISC (Cont' d. ) In reply to questions by Commission, Community Development Coordinator stated that this was the first time there had been a written ordinance based on legislation by the Federal Government; that this was a final map; that the primary purpose of the ordinance is to continue the Citys participation in the flood insurance program (to obtain Federal assistance and grants) ; and that the ordinance must be adopted before March 1 , in order for the City' s participation to continue. Commissioner Curtis stated that flood insurance could not be obtained independently unless it was done through a homeowners association. Community Development Coordinator stated that the provisions of the ordinance were applicable to Indian land. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur, and unanimously carried (Service absent) ordering the prepartion of a draft Negative Declaration and continuing review of the ordinance and map to January 26 for a public hearing. Tribal Council comments: "It was noted that an ordinance of this type would be beneficial to the community and would also be a necessary prerequisite to establishing eligibility for Federal flood insurance benefits. However, it was considered premature to approve a Negative Declaration for this ordinance before a detailed review of the specific provisions of the ordinance. Since the ordinance was not made available to Tribal representatives in time to provide adequate review of its environmental , legal , and procedural impacts, a continuance would be appropriate. Therefore, after consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council recommended that action on this environmental assessment be continued pending review by the Tribal legal counsel and planning consultant." Chairman returned to the meeting at this point. CASE 3.512. Application by W. VEITH for F. Matijasich for architectural approval of revised plans for single family residence on uthridge Drive between Tigertail Lane/Southridge Circle, R-1-C Zone, ection 25. (Ref. Case 6.330-Variance.) (Environmental assessment and tentative approval .) • January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 18 CASE 3.512 (Cont' d. ) Planning Director stated that staff originally recommended quick disapproval of the project because of environmental impacts on the site such as scarring of the hillside (for a road) and sewage problems. He described the site and the architects attempt to mitigate the aesthetic problems and stated that the AAC had recommended approval of the architecture subject to conditions; that the Building & Safety Director will approve a septic tank installation on the site since there are other septic tanks in the area although the County Health Department has recommended that this type of system not be allowed for the project; that no complaints had been received relative to seepage in the Southridge area; that the lot was originally considered unbuildable and "not a part of" of the Southridge development; that the AAC felt that the architecture was a reasonable solution to the site; that the applicant feels that the house is a positive impact on the site; and explained possible courses of action. W. Veith, the architect, stated that he had responded to AAC concerns and described the topography of the site on the display board. He requested tentative approval subject to submission of a landscape restoration program. In reply to question by Commission, Mr. Veith stated that although the Southridge Homeowners Association has not approved the revisions to the • plans , he felt it would be no problem. Discussion followed on the site, massiveness of the residence on the site, and the scarring of the hillside for the road. Mr. Veith stated that construction would be started as soon as possible since financing has been arranged. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Kaptur ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and tentative approval subject to conditions. The vote was as follows: AYES: Harris, Kaptur, Madsen NOES: Curtis, Koetting, Lawrence, Service ABSENT: None The motion was defeated. NOTE: There was discussion before the vote on the motion regarding Commission concerns on hillside scarring, sewage problems, and the massiveness and aesthetics of the architecture. Commissioner Curtis felt that the only way the hillside scarring could be alleviated would be to approve the project even though the house is oversized. Commissioner Koetting stated that the septic tank had not been approved by the Water Quality Control Board even though the City Building & Safety Director will approve it; and that the site is not easily buildable. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 19 • CASE 3.512 (Cont' d. ) Chairman stated that the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance was to make development sympathetic with the environment, not force a project onto the environment; that after a field trip he felt there was no logical building site; and that the application is for something that is not a lot, (which staff indicates needs interpretation) . Commissioner Kaptur stated that he was not generally pleased with the application, but the lot is a lot of record and a person is entitled to build on his property; that he felt that if the Building Department believes a septic tank is viable, he would go along with that opinion; that he felt that the rock wall would be acceptable; that the house is no worse nor better than others in Southridge; and that the hillside has already been scarred. Discussion followed on setting a precedent by allowing a lot such as the subject one to be developed. Planning Director stated that the lot was originally part of a subdivision plan and was left out as "not a part" ; that explanation of this phrase could be discussed at the January 19 study session; that this type of proposal could recur although changes have been made to the Subdivision Map Act since this was allowed to be listed as a lot of record; and reiterated that when application was made for the Southridge Subdivision Map, the lot was not considered as a buildable site. • Further discussion ensued on the site, the lot, sewer problems, and future problems if additional applications are received for similar projects. Planning Director stated that the Building & Safety Director has written a letter stating that under unusual hillside circumstances , he would 'take the responsibility of percolation testing on fill property and the applicant would have to meet requirements that any other leach field septic tank system would have to meet before approval and approved under the same standards as the Health Department would require; that there is a problem in that after a septic tank is installed, and if it does not meet percolation standards, the Building & Safety Director would probably not approve it creating a fill area without the house; and that every house in Southridge is on septic tanks. Commissioner Harris stated that fill can be brought in to meet percolation standards. Commissioner Kaptur stated that when Southridge was developed, the builders were probably not sensitive to hillside areas and wanted to sell graded lots and this lot was not conducive to grading and therefore was left out of the subdivision. Discussion followed on whether or not the application should be continued and direction to give the applicant. Motion was made by Koetting and seconded by Lawrence to deny the • application subject to environmental reasons, citing the extreme conditions of development of the road to a non-buildable site within a lot and concerns arising from a leach system. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 20 • CASE 3.512 (Cont' d.) In reply to questions by Commission, Assistant City Attorney stated that an action for denial could be appealed to the City Council ; that he could not speculate on whether or not the applicant would have reasonable justification toward the City; and that it was important to keep in mind the impact of the action. Further discussion followed on the environmental and architectural issues. Assistant City Attorney stated that it was important to keep the two issues separate as to which is associated with architectural approval and which are environmental concerns; and that architectural issues would be siting, ingress and egress, and harmony with surroundings. In reply to questions by Commission, Assistant City Attorney advised that the motion should deny architectural approval and delete reference to environmental concerns. Motion was made by Koetting, seconded by Lawrence, and carried (Harris, Kaptur & Madsen dissenting) amending the previous motion with the consent of the seconder as follows: "That the application be denied for architectural reasons citing the building location within the lot, the development of the road and the way it is designed in approximation to the building site, and size and location of the building" . • Chairman stated that the environmental assessment concerns have been removed from the motion. Planning Director clarified the environmental assessment process and stated that if a project were denied, there would be no action on the environmental issues; that if the denial is appealed to the City Council , the Council can make the environmental findings; and that architecture of a project could be denied with a draft Negative Declaration prepared. NOTE: Mr Matijasich, who was in the audience, vigorously protested denial of his project. TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS Planning Director reviewed and explained the maps and the Planning Commission discussed and took action on the following parcel map based on the finding that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for design and improvement, are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Palm Springs. A Negative Declaration has been ordered filed based on the finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and subject to conditions as outlined. • January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 21 • TTM 18848. Application by KWL ASSOCIATES, INC, for D. Mendlascino for tentative tract map to convert seven apartments to condominiums on Camino Real , north of Laverne Way, R-2 Zone, Section 26. (This action is categorically exempt from Environmental Assessment per CEQA guidelines.) Discussion ensued on removal of apartments from the housing stock since this is an identified City need. Motion was made by Curtis, seconed by Kaptur, and unanimously carried approving Tentative Tract Map 18848 subject to all recommendations of the Development Committee. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are routine in nature and have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, AAC and staff. No further review is required, and all items are approved by one blanket motion upon unanimous consent. Motion was made by Harris , seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried approving the following applications subject to all conditions of staff, • Development Committee and the AAC as follows and ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration as indicated: CASE 2.949. B. MILLER for architectural approval of revised landscape plans and entry gate for single family residence on Southridge Drive, R-1-A Zone, Section 15. Conditions: 1. That the entry gate is approved. 2. That there be a restudy of the landscape plan noting that the originally approved plans should be adhered to. CASE 3.405. D. LEVY for H. Berry for architectural approval of revised final working drawings for a 4-unit apartment building on Junipero Avenue, north of Cabrillo Road, R-G-A (6) Zone, Section 3. Conditions: 1. That flat brown tile be installed in-lieu of solar panels if applicable (for staff approval ) . 2. That a landscape strip be included in the southeast corner of the site. 3. That the horizontal element be continued to the edge of the building on the north elevation. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 22 • CONSENT AGENDA (Cont' d.) CASE 3.556 (MINOR) . DESERT INN FASHION PLAZA for K. Wilhelmsson for archi- tectural approval of revisions to exterior of Fashion Plaza, 151 North Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Approved as submitted. CASE 5.0201-PD-135. THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER for architectural approval of final landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans for center bounded by Alejo Road, Vine Street/Chino Drive and Cahuilla Road, R-1-A Zone, Section 10. Condition: Inclusion of desert landscaping on both sides of the footpath on the west elevation, subject to staff approval . TTM 16759. P. TYNBERG for AAC to delete street tree requirement for sub- division of single family lots on Bogert Trail between South Palm Canyon Drive/Andreas Hills Road, R-1-B Zone, Section 35. Condition: That the street tree requirement be deleted. • ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS The Planning Commission reviewed plans, discussed, and took action on the following items involving architectural approval subject to the conditions as outlined. CASE 3.559. Application by EISNER-SMITH PLANNERS for Palm Canyon Assoc. for architectural approval of a 270-room resort hotel on East Palm Canyon Drive between CherokeeWay/Southridge Drive, C-2 Zone (I .L.) , Section 30. Planning Director stated that the applicant has requested a determination on the necessity of a frontage road; that staff recommends that the frontage road remain; that the applicant wants the road deleted for a green space instead of pavement but that staff recommends that it remain because of the nature of multiple properties in the area that the three properties to the east developed the frontage road; that the applicant wants a decision on deletion at the meeting; and that the frontage road was necessary to connect all the properties along the road for accessing. Further discussion continued on the access to Highway 111. Planning Director stated that if there were a cut through the frontage road for the Ford Agency, there would be an unsignalized intersection as the worst condition. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that the item be continued for two weeks • for further staff review. Planning Director stated that the applicant would be in limbo for that two weeks and requested firm direction from the Commission. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 23 • CASE 3.559 (Cont' d. ) Further discussion ensued on signalization of the intersection and the possibility of dedication of the road. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried continuing the application to January 26 to allow further staff review of the road. Commissioner Koetting left the meeting at this point. CASE 3.553. Application by DESIGN HAUS ARCHITECTURAL ASSOC. for architectural approval of 184 condominum units on Avenida Caballeros between Saturnino Road/Arenas Road, R-4 Zone (I .L.) , Section 14. (This application was moved to the Environmental Section of the Agenda.) Planning Director stated that the architectural aspect of the project needs restudy and that it would be reviewed for environmental assessment since the applicant intends to submit a map. . Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Koetting absent; Madsen abstained) ordering the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and continuing the application to January 26. Tribal Council comments: "It was noted that this case constitutes a major development impact within Section 14, which is a portion of the City of particular concern to the Tribal Council . However, Development Committee meeting minutes were not available prior to the Tribal council meeting of January 11 , 1983. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council withheld comment and final action on this case pending receipt and review of the Development Committee meeting minutes and recommended that action be continued by the City Planning Commission pending this review." Commissioner Koetting returned to the meeting. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 24 • MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CONSIDERATION. Request by Palm Springs Senior Center to use the Canyon Hotel Convention Center on March 25, 1983 for a one-night special event (Americana Ball ) . Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried approving the use of the Canyon Hotel Convention Center on March 25, 1983 for the Americana Ball . Tribal Council comments: "It was noted that the Canyon Hotel Convention facilities have been used on an infrequent basis for special events requiring relatively large- scale parking needs and that these events have been approved by the City Planning Commission subject to appropriate provisions for parking. After consideration of the recommendations fo the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council recommends that the use of the Canyon Hotel Convention facilities for the requested event on March 25, 1983, be approved subject to appropriate actions by the applicant to handle the projected parking needs." • DISCUSSION. Request by staff to discuss the use of white roofs in hillside areas subject to architectural approval . Planning Director stated that in older homes on hillsides, roofing contractors are proposing white roofs which have been approved by the Building Division since that Division has not realized that white roofs were a concern of the Planning Division. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried that white roofs are not allowed in hillside areas unless specifically approved by the AAC and the Planning Commission. Planning Director noted that the requirement could be placed in design guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance. • January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 25 • ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont' d. ) CASE 3.561 (MINOR) . Application by KAPTUR & CIOFFI for architectural approval of minor revision to existing restaurant and signing for Carlo' s II at 292 East Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 Zone, Section 23. Assistant City Attorney stated that the parenthetical portion of Condition No. 2 of the AAC recommendations should read as follows: "Subject to submission of an administrative minor modification." In reply to question by Commission, Planning Director stated that only new additions need be brought to code requirements (not the entire building) and in this particular case, staff would probably research the project to determine the requirement at the time the restaurant was constructed. Discussion followed on placement of the trash enclosure, signing, and bay parking. Commissioner Harris stated that the neon tube around the building was inappropriate and if approved would establish a precedent. Motion was made by Madsen and seconded by Curtis approving the application including the signage and with the trash enclosure location • to be resolved with staff. The vote was as follows: AYES: Curtis, Koetting, Madsen NOES: Harris, Lawrence, Service ABSTENTION: Kaptur ABSENT: None There was a tie vote. Motion was made by Harris, seconded by Lawrence, and unanimously carried (Kaptur abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1 . That a separate sign application be submitted. 2. That the trash enclosure be relocated to the northern corner of the site. 3. That the resulting lost parking space not result in a loss of a restaurant seat (subject to the submission of an application for an administrative minor modification) . 4. That vines or bougainvillea be included in the planter northwest of the parking lot. • January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 26 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Cont'd. ) CASE 3.564 (MINOR) (Ref. CASE 2.812) . Application by FAIRWAYS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. for architectural approval of bedroom addition at 6124 St. Andrews Plaza, N-0-5 Zone, Section 20. Motion was made by Kaptur, seconded by Harris, and unanimously carried (Madsen abstained) approving the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That the extension be set back 12 inches from the forwardmost phase of the northern elevation. 2. That the corner and all details be rounded to match the existing structure. CASE 5.0209-PD-136. Application by WESTAR ASSOCIATES for archtectural approval of final development (landscape) plans for Phase I of shopping center on N. Palm Canyon Dr. between Racquet Club/Cortez Road, C-1 & R-G-A(6) Zones, Section 3. Discussion ensued on the lighting program. Planning Director stated that the AAC had recommended restudy of the landscaping. • Motion was made by Madsen, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously carried (Koetting abstained) approving the landscaping (final development plans) subject to the following conditions: 1. That tree well sizes be increased to a minimum dimension of six feet. 2. That the perimeter wall be revised to eliminate the conflict with the end parking spaces. CONTINUED ITEMS CASE 3.309. H. KASSINGER for the Bank of Palm Springs for architectural approval of entry canopies and revised sign program for retail center on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Calle E1 Segundo/Calle Alvarado, R-4-VP & C-1-AA Zones (I .L. ) , Section 14. Continued to January 26 for receipt of canopy and sign materials from the applicant. CASE 5.0237-PD-69-A. C. HELLMAN for First Nationwide Savings/First Wisconsin National Bank for architectural approval of revised final development plans for savings & loan branch office on East Palm Canyon Drive between Sunrise Way/Arquilla Way, R-3 Zone (I .L. ) , Section 25. (Ref. Cases 5.0216-CZ & 5.0235-GPA. ) Continued to January 26 for receipt of revised plans from the applicant. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 27 • ITEMS FOR RESTUDY The following items were removed from the Planning Commission agenda pending restudy. Application will be rescheduled for hearing only after revised submittals have been processed. CASE 3.560 (MINOR) . TRINIDAD HOTEL for architectural approval of revised plans for minor exterior revisions to hotel at 1900 East Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 24. Restudy of the elevations noting that the elevations should be repainted and renovated and that details of the roof mounted mechanical equipment screening be submitted. Restudy of the sign noting that it should be relocated out of the right- of-way, the base reduced, and the taper of the base increased. CSE 2.960. THE MINK LADY for architectural approval of awnings, curtains and color change for building at the Vineyard, 255 South Palm Canyon Drive, C-B-D Zone, Section 15. Restudy for revision of colors and materials. • COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION - Tour of downtown parking areas with the DDAC January 21 by bus. Meet at City hall at 1 p.m. - Warner Cable roof antennas. Planning Director stated that review of screen parapet will be brought to the Planning Commission after antennas are in place. - Aaron Brothers remodel . Planning Director stated that it was approved at staff level and is being restored (except for the existing windows) as part of the Plaza. - Economic Interest Statements. Planning Director stated that they require the same information as in previous years. - Planning Commissioners Institute in Monterey, March 2 - 4, possible review with planners of that city of sign program. - Sign approved at staff level . Planning Director requested Commissioners to advise staff if signs approved at staff level are not aesthetically pleasing so that staff is aware of Commission criteria. Commissioner Kaptur commented that the City may be stifling imagination of the sign designers and thereby creating poor signs. January 12, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 28 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5 :30 p.m. MDR/mi ANNING TOR